In VHS Huron Valley Sinai Hospital v. Sentinel Insurance Company, 328005, the Court of Appeals applied the holding Michigan Supreme Court in Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 500 Mich 191; 895 NW2d 490 (2017) that the plaintiff, a health care provider, did not possess a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for the recovery of personal protection insurance benefits. Specifically, the court held that: 1) the law set forth in Covenant applied retroactively to Defendant's pending appeal; and 2) Defendant did not waive its defense as to plaintiff’s lack of standing through a stipulated order and consent judgment.

In Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc., No. 152889, the Michigan Supreme Court held that though the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (the “Doctrine”) does not allow a court to substitute its opinion for that of a religious entity on matters that are ecclesiastical in nature, it does not divest a court of jurisdiction over claims as a whole just because they involve an ecclesiastical question.

In Stenzel v. Best Buy Company Inc. 328804 a special conflict resolution panel of the Court of Appeals has decided to deviate from Williams v Arbor Home, Inc, 254 Mich App 439; 656 NW2d 873 (2002) and rule that the Michigan Supreme Court intended to streamline the process for amending a pleading to include a new party by allowing a party to file an amended pleading directly under MCR 2.112(K)(4), rather than filing a motion for leave to amend which the court would be required to grant without exception under MCL 600.2957(2). The Court of Appeals decided the two approaches were in direct conflict with one another, but that the constitutional authority granted to the Michigan Supreme Court under Article 6 § 5 to “establish, modify, amend and simplify the practice and procedure in all courts of this state” allowed the court rule to override and control.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.